Menu

This post requires an update. In it, I expressed outrage at the appearance that a change was being made to the roster of Toronto witnesses based on pressure from the group that regularly attacks Citizen Investigation Team and ridicules the idea that no 757 hit the Pentagon. It turns out that while pressure was certainly applied, this change was at the request of the person whose name was removed from the schedule (April Gallop). Despite the fact that I said people should be angry “if” she was removed due to pressure and didn’t state this as a fact, the impression left was unfair to the organizers of the hearings.–Craig McKee

By Craig McKee

It appears that the organizers of the Toronto 9/11 hearings have utterly caved to pressure and thrown fairness and common sense under the bus in the process.

April Gallop, who was injured in the Pentagon on Sept. 11, 2001 along with her infant son, has been removed from the list of witnesses at the upcoming hearings (Sept. 8-11), to be replaced by an “unconfirmed” witness. If that replacement is assigned to make the case that a 757 did, in fact, hit the Pentagon then truthers everywhere should scream bloody murder.

I really hope that the disappearance of Gallop’s name from the schedule on torontohearings.org has some innocent explanation (no official reason has been given), but I’m not optimistic. Her appearance was to have been in video form.

A recent opening up of the hearings to some Pentagon research (it was to be kept to a minimum originally on the grounds that it is too “controversial”) had raised the ire of the “truthers” who support the 9/11 official story as it pertains to the Pentagon.

This group was already perturbed that another Toronto event focusing on the Pentagon had been announced, involving the main objects of their scorn – Citizen Investigation Team and their film National Security Alert. This event was organized by Barrie Zwicker, author, media critic and 9/11 researcher who supports CIT’s conclusions. Neither Zwicker nor CIT’s Craig Ranke and Aldo Marquis were invited to speak at the hearings. Same for Pilots for 9/11 Truth, which also supports CIT.

Despite these omissions, it wasn’t all bad news. In addition to Gallop, Barbara Honegger was added to talk about explosions inside the Pentagon and David Ray Griffin was scheduled to give a talk about the anomalies of flights 77 and 93. Pilot Ted Muga of San Diego was also invited to speak (he supports CIT’s research) but he couldn’t attend because of knee surgery.

This all indicates that openness was winning out over suppression with the Toronto organizers. That’s when the gang who relentlessly attacks the idea that no 757 hit the Pentagon got busy (people like SnowCrash, Victoria Ashley, Frank Legge, Jim Hoffman, Chris Sarns, “jimd3100” and others, whose wisdom can be found on 911blogger.com, truthaction.org, 911oz.net and other sites).

They had tried to keep the Pentagon off the agenda entirely, and they failed. So over the last day or two, they got to work lobbying to get their Pentagon witness heard. And it’s not like no one they favour was scheduled to speak. Richard Gage, David Chandler, Kevin Ryan, and Jonathan Cole are all on the roster and all oppose CIT.

Here’s what Ashley had previously posted this week on truthaction.org:

“I’ve made an effort to get a “a Boeing hit the Pentagon but never should have” speaker in to the conference to offset the “no Boeing” line-up so far — even suggested we would pay for the flight — but aside from some support by fellow attendees, I have so far been met with silence from the organizers (have emailed 3 different people, one yesterday, 2 more than a day ago).
“Many of the Canadian activists and speakers have been supporters of “no Boeing” for years now, so I think the only way to have avoided this would have been to completely keep the Pentagon topic off the agenda, which is what I thought was the original plan.”
“Apparently it never was, if what Snowcrash dug up is true.”

But what a difference a couple of days make.

When Gallop and Honegger were added, Frank Legge said his group had been “deceived.” Yesterday, Ashley announced on truthaction.org that a change had occurred with the hearings following a meeting (presumably of the Toronto steering committee). The implication was that her people would be happy with the change. I’m sure they are.

How did they succeed in getting the organizers to cave? Not only does it appear that the “Pentagon-official-story” people have access to inside information about the hearings, but they also clearly have inside clout. Didn’t organizers understand the implications of this type of last-minute change? They would have been better not to invite Gallop in the first place.

It seems that this group of anti-CIT disruptors is only happy when they are driving a wedge into the movement. I don’t think they’re after the truth at all.

They’ve succeeded in getting Gage (Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth) to denounce CIT in writing. By taking this very poor advice, Gage has harmed his own reputation.

Chandler and Cole have also attacked CIT in a sloppy and illogical “statement” that – like Gage’s piece on CIT – was posted on 911blogger, the site that has been denounced for harming the movement and banning those who support the idea that a plane did not hit the Pentagon.

While the additions of Gallop and Honegger clearly angered the anti-CIT gang, they were still left with David Ray Griffin, who was part of the witness line-up from the beginning. In addition to his “anomalies” talk, he will also speak about the problems with the 9/11 Commission Report.

Despite doing the best job of anyone in picking apart the whole official story of 9/11, Griffin is being bashed along with CIT because he supports their contention that a 757 didn’t hit the Pentagon.

Hmm. Victoria Ashley or David Ray Griffin… They’re both so credible, it’s hard to choose.

SnowCrash comments on truthaction.org that Griffin “still hasn’t retracted” his statements supporting the position taken by CIT. But Griffin is not Gage, and unless I’m seriously mistaken, he won’t compromise his considerable reputation to please a group whose goal is to suppress the truth about the Pentagon.

It seems that the Toronto hearings organizers have made that compromise.

“They argued before an appellate panel of three judges: Judge Ralph Winter, Judge Marina Corodemus (a potential SCOTUS (Supreme Court Of The United States) nomination), and Judge JOHN WALKER (all Yale law school grads). Of course, Ms. Gallop’s attorneys filed for dismissal of Judge John Walker, which was denied. Clearly, they do not care that the judge hearing the case suing the former Vice President is the former President’s cousin. Ms. Gallop’s attorney’s then made a motion for an appellate review of their decision to keep Judge Walker on the case, which was also denied. And the whole time in court, the arguments of Ms. Gallop’s attorneys were completely ignored and instead were questioned with very demeaning inquiries by the judges, such as:

Do you even have a law degree?
From what law school?
Are you licensed to practice in the 2nd Circuit?
Have you ever represented a client in the 2nd Circuit? etc

Victoria Ashley, the person who worked behind the scenes to have Ms Gallop¡s story removed posted this at the time:

Detractors have publically labelled her a “moneygrabber” (Hill, JimD1300 among others), she’s been used in a racist context in a video over at TruthAction. She’s a 9/11 victim and has been treated like a pariah. Jon Gold claims to fight for the victims. Where’s his big mouth defending her?

I think that the “hit&run” “one line wonder” from 911oz might be back as “Reggie” on Mr. McKee’s venue- yes, OSS’ and my old ‘friend-‘ Lil’ Debbie U. Jean! (The ‘content’ observed so far here is eerily similar [and correspondingly vapid] anyway… )

Lots of things are wrong with this Legge/Chandler piece. Take this short passage.

One development that appears to be a tactic in the ongoing cover-up is the high profile promotion of transparently false theories, “straw men,” the only purpose of which appears to be to allow the 9/11 Truth Movement to be ridiculed.

I agree with it up to the second comma. But for the “the only purpose” of a straw man to be ridicule of the 9/11 Truth Movement really shows either their failure of imagination, or another purpose more befitting of their own straw man efforts: misdirection.

Case in point, they immediately take swipes at other non-CIT theories without proof and as if their being wrong was self-evident.

Dr Judy Wood has published a book asserting that the World Trade Center (WTC) towers were felled by “dustification” of the steel, which she claims is achieved by the use of “directed free energy”. It is, however, obvious that the steel was severed and fell in normal lengths, otherwise intact, as seen in conventional demolitions.

The straw man in the above is that Legge/Chandler seem to be writing about the outer structure, which indeed was severed and fell in normal lengths. Their analysis does not go into the inner-content, the concrete floors, the inner core, where indeed we discover dustification of most things. Was steel dustified? That might be a stretch, except that some nifty bent beams and “meteor melts” were present (that super-duper nano-thermite can’t explain), and the debris does not seem to account for all of the steel from the core.

No need to dwell on this further, except that — compliments of me — Chandler has had a copy of Dr. Judy Wood’s textbook since May, and he was charged with giving it an objective evaluation. This two sentence dismissal doesn’t cut it.

No explanation involving “directed free energy” or nuclear devices could account for the way separate explosions appeared in the Twin Towers, layer by layer, descending at a precise rate, as the towers came down.

Legge/Chandler again show their failure of imagination with this overly generalized statement. Evidently, they’ve never heard of having back-up plans to the back-up plans or implementing overly redundant systems or using DEW and super-duper nano-thermite and [name something here].

The first leg of the straw man in their attack on CIT is found in this series of quotes:

The NTSB data appeared to show that the flight terminated at a point too high to have hit the Pentagon.

John Farmer used radar data to check the FDR file data and concluded that indeed several seconds of data was missing from the end of the file.7 Recently Warren Stutt discovered that there was one more frame of data at the end of the FDR file which had not been decoded previously. He wrote a decoding program and managed to extract a further 4 seconds of data. This data includes radio height above ground, which now shows the plane descending smoothly, pulling up safely and hitting the Pentagon close to the ground, in accordance with the majority of eyewitness reports.

It is rather curious that that last four seconds were missing and then were suddenly found. And upon decoding, supposedly shows a smoothly descending plane with a flight path in accordance with the majority of the eyewitness reports.

Here is the linchpin straw man in their text for which they have no reference.

It is further argued by PFT that the radar data must be in error as it does not correspond with the pressure altimeter record, which still shows the plane too high to hit the Pentagon. On approach to the Pentagon, however, the plane is flying much faster than normal for an aircraft at low altitude and so would be operating well beyond the calibration envelope for the altimeter. It appears that, at least on this particular plane, a substantial error is produced, increasing as the plane accelerates and descends. In contrast the radio height would not be affected by speed. It is therefore reasonable to accept the height it shows, which corresponds with the height shown by the damage to the light poles and the face of the Pentagon. This has been fully discussed in a previous paper where it is shown that the altimeter reading and radio height reading correspond closely with each other at normal altitude and speed but diverge as the plane descends and accelerates to abnormal speeds.Error: Reference source not found

Yes, altimeters are affected by temperature, speed, and height. However, the calibration goes out of whack at high speeds and high altitudes. Nothing I have found suggests such grave errors at low altitudes.

It is therefore ~NOT~ reasonable to accept the height [radio data] shows, particularly when (a) chain-of-custody and analysis issues are major for that critical last 4 seconds of “new found” data, and (b) no evidence is presented to support that altimeters operate beyond their calibration envelope at high speeds and low altitude.

Because Legge/Chandler go into great detail to determine the speed of the aircraft and the low altitude range (for hitting and flyover) is known, Legge/Chandler failed document the calibration envelope, failed to calculate how high speeds at low altitude plays a role in the calibration, and what sort of errors would be introduced. (Would the plane be higher than the altimeter reading or lower? By how much? With an error introduced to the altimeter reading based on speed at low altitude, could the plane have been high enough still to have missed the Pentagon?)

In conclusion, the Legge/Chandler piece is fitting to the 10-year anniversary of hit-pieces aimed at ridiculing 9/11 truth.

Do you agree or understand that a north side flight plane proves an inside job?

Do you accept that the witnesses, namely the officers at or next to the Citgo, stood by where they saw the plane even after learning the implications?

Does it make sense that genuine 9/11 truthers would fight to suppress these witness accounts, especially when some including the officers, would testify to it?

Were you near the Citgo gas station the morning of the 9/11 attack or would you say the witnesses we interviewed would have a better idea than you to tell us where the plane flew in relation to the gas station?

Would you agree with that fact that you are essentially an ANONYMOUS online entity devoid of any real identity or background? Would you agree that the name “Michiel de Boer” is a common name where u are allegedly from? Would you agree that we don’t know anything about you other than what you post online?

Would you agree that you reneged on your promise to a live debate with Craig?

Would you agree that a live debate would allow the correct party to corner the incorrect party and get them to concede on certain points they have been wrong on? Would you agree that this live debate would have prevented one party from side stepping certain questions or issues?

Would you agree that if it is accepted that the plane was truly on the north side of the gas station, that anonymous online entities, such as yourself, who have attacked us, attempted to marginalize us, and suppress or minimize the importance of this evidence are likely part of a intelligence infiltration team? Would that be an unreasonable conclusion or assumption to come to based on the fact that the witnesses were so adamant about the north path even after learning the implications?

I sympathize with you and feel you are indeed getting a bad deal with your CIT efforts.

Unfortunately, you went off of the road and into the weeds with all of your “would you agree” nonsense. Yes, it was nonsense, because you’ve stilted questions such that “I don’t agree” would be an easy and valid answer. Most of the questions are ad hominems.

Yes, you’ve had your unsatisfactory previous rounds with “Snowcrash” aka “Michiel de Boer”. However, dragging that dirty laundry into this forum does little for readers here and little for your case. The links were good, but could have used an executive summary and select extracts (minus any ad hominems), because you’re just dumping us into old debates.

For example, when commenting about this Legge/Chandler paper, you could have extracted the following:

RA – PA Correlation, proving the “Altitude Divergence” calculated by Legge/Stutt was due to RA measuring from an object higher than ground level. Fatal to the Legge/Stutt argument.http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.p…&p=10794074

If Legge/Stutt “Altitude Divergence” calculations were correct, Aircraft would be slamming into the ground. IAD ILS RWY 01R Approach Analysis, Instruments required for IFR Flight Based on Regulation.http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.p…&p=10793490

“I sympathize with you and feel you are indeed getting a bad deal with your CIT efforts.”

I don’t think you know the half of it to be honest. People such as “Snowcrash” and Brian Good are beyond civil debate. They aren’t capable of it. I’ve only been aware of this evidence for 3 years and I’m pissed off with their tactics and cowardice.

Aldo and Craig have been under the cosh from the FIRST day that they released this evidence. Constant, daily attacks. All gunk. Disinfo. Lies. Repeated over and over from various angles…from people at (apparent) opposite spectrums of “9/11 Truth”. From a person who lead a nasty ass NPT campaign, through to “truthers” with JREF loyalist apologist links, through LIHOP/Al Qaeda storyline followers, right through to the most vapid, anti-truther online, “pomeroo”. All working together to discredit this evidence.

Regarding my sympathies with CIT and them getting a bad deal, you wrote:

I don’t think you know the half of it to be honest.

Correct.

You go on to write (with my emphasis):

People such as “Snowcrash” and Brian Good are beyond civil debate. They aren’t capable of it. I’ve only been aware of this evidence for 3 years and I’m pissed off with their tactics and cowardice.

Later you write:

Kid gloves are off with these idiots.

Actually, civil debate is a tactic that is very effective. When your opponents deviate from such decorum, your best defense is to continue to take the high road in maintaining your civility. In other words, keep the gloves on.

Also in my experience here with Mr. Brian Good and some of his predecessors (e.g., “Agent Albury Smith” as I affectionately grew to call him), he can be very civil if you establish that and maintain it in your own responses. Mr. SnowCrash can be civil as well from what I’ve read elsewhere on internet. The opponent who deviates from civility repeatedly in response to courteous messages loses the PR campaign in a major way, while building a stock pile of ammunition around their feet that will be used against them in a Bugs Bunny match-holding sort of a way.

Example: An opponent’s message can be parsed for two elements. One is the salient points that your civil message will address, and the other is the ad hominems. Their own ad hominems swept together into a bulleted list can at some point be laid at their feet, this is what you’ve written about me. The most embarrassing and repeated slurs lose their sting to hurt the intended target when stockpiled together in this way as a score-card.

Among their bot-tactics that annoyed me was their repetition and rehashing of the same ground over and over. Because each and every posting from them has the potential but not necessarily the requirement to be an opportunity to respond with civil truth, as best understood, participating in the first cycle is important.

In new forums, recognize that a portion of the audience might be new or even much-latter-day-lurkers. Therefore, using “goto links” to outside forums to seemingly nip repetitive discussions in the bud to claim victory may fail in convincing late-day-readers if the destination link goes away at some future time. Within a single forum when discussions get circular, “goto links” to other threads within the forum is a different story.

[Point of clarification: relevant quotations and links to the source are always appreciated, except when the quoted text is a trick to circumvent civility and re-ignite a flame war.]

You guys brought your CIT fight to Mr. McKee’s Truth & Shadows blog. The playing field is stilted towards civility, and that it how it should be played with “kid gloves on” and “some balls grown.”

All very true. I’m more of a researcher than a “debater” and fall easily into the trap of blowing my top and sometimes cringe when I read back some of what i post because of the very same reasons you’ve laid out. I think you would laugh if you actually met the easy going personality behind some of these rants!

Advise taken on board.

I guess I’m just “war weary”. I can’t imagine how Craig, Aldo and Rob feel.

Oh no see, I know OSS’ name, have seen his face, have spoken with him on the phone, and know his background. So do other members at our forum.

But why should he reveal his identity publicly? He is not trying to subvert witnesses testimony that proves an inside job, you are. He didn’t go around claiming he isn’t anonymous when he is, you did. He isn’t attacking us, you did. He didn’t renege on his promise to a live debate, you did.

I mean, let’s get it straight-you are anonymously trying to keep the north side/flyover related witnesses out of court and out of the reach of public viewing and opinion.

You weren’t there, the witnesses were and stand by where they saw the plane even after being made aware of the implications. Some would testify to it. And your reaction is try and stop it and circumvent it?!?! And you are supposed to be a truther.

Think about it, “snowcrash”, you are covering up mass murder. Essentially you are an “accomplice after the fact”.

We know you’ll never admit it, but you know I know what you are. I struggle to think what type of person(s) would help facilitate the cover-up of mass murder. But then I realize you military/intelligence types don’t give two shits about life. How do you people look yourselves in the mirror? You probably don’t, just like you can’t look us in the face and debate us.

Nice dodge “Snowcrash”. Let’s see, who is at more risk by revealing their names..

Somebody who is pushing the OCT of 9/11 or people who defend literal gold dust in proving that 9/11 was a black flag operation? Hmmmm….

The fact is. I’m just an ordinary Joe. My identity is unimportant and I can understand perfectly those on the side of truth wishing to remain anonymous.

It’s not so much paranoia, just that I shudder to think of the likes of creeps like Brian Good, Jeff Hill and yourself sniffing around my family details. That’s all.

Tptb KNOW who I am. That’s out of my hands.

I’m not the one attacking people daily from the safety of sites where the same people are banned. The safety of being able to press the red square with a white cross in the corner of a screen when the going gets tough or you want to avoid questions like you and yours do (just look at your dodging throughout Craig’s blogs here!)

No, I want to see your, Frank Legge’s, Michael Wolsey, Chris Sarns or Victoria Ashley’s eyes and expressions when the same proven lies are uttered. No “white cross” click. No time to think. “hmm, how am I going to word this ridiculous response?”.

No hiding place.

Ask wordsmith Adam Larson. Jeff Hill. Bursill. They were recorded calls and they STILL had to acknowledge the validity of the evidence. Imagine on camera??

You all have the oppurtunity to debate in Toronto. As I said. Grow some balls.

“It is rather curious that that last four seconds were missing and then were suddenly found. And upon decoding, supposedly shows a smoothly descending plane with a flight path in accordance with the majority of the eyewitness reports. ”

It actually DIDN’T show a “smoothly descending plane”. Here’s the data I asked Warren Stutt for, which include the alleged last seconds of the flight and the lat/long points which he himself drew:

They tweaked and twisted this nonsense data to lie up with the directional damage.

They (Stutt and Legge) built their whole paper around the RADALT v Pressure Altitude “argument” and the aircraft was still too high. They tweaked that too. What’s more, Warren Stutt’s understanding of his Pressure Altitude argument was exposed here. In black and white:

This is the type of “debate” these people want. Two-liners, ignore all of the links posted, insults, unfounded accusations.

The OP of this blog was a noble gesture. A possible springboard for trying to get two opposing sides to sit down and thrash out differences in a civil, controlled manner. A point by point discussion where every basic point is debated until some sort of accord is reached.
Facts, figures, physics, aerodynamics. Balances, checks, proper moderation by genuine neutral parties who decide which has more merit. Which is pure bs and/or unsubstantiated where the moderator disallows already proven mis/disinformation.

That’s MY naieve wish. But it’s not gonna happen.

“Snowcrash” made that comment and can’t even back his accusations up.

He’s basically called me a liar. Okay.

The ONLY possible way for him to level that accusation is to point to the fact that I believe that a flyover occurred. I base this belief on the NOC evidence and the package that comes with it.
I point to an entire base of corraborated witness testimony, the OCT manouevre that has been proven to be impossible in a 757 and much more. That’s my “lie” according to him.

Go ahead “Snowcrash”. Link us to one lie I have told. On ANY forum.

Now he’ll have time to click the brain gears and play on words, dodge, duck and weave. Can’t wait to see the response.

If Mr. Snowcrash calls anyone a liar he will have to prove it or find another blog to crap on.

Hey, I knew it was only a matter of time. Nobody ever censors anything they agree with. Besides, you’re a crap merchant extraordinaire, way beyond anything I could assist you with, too petrified to ever set foot on 911oz again, like your friends here. You don’t necessarily have to post this, I know you have to “moderate” it before you reject it. You don’t know who harassed Graeme MacQueen?….So you say. What a transparent joke you are. Either you making it up or you are covering it up. You are running with a bunch of psychopathic stalkers and you will have to own up and share responsibility for that. Huge FAIL. Doesn’t it become a pattern, Craig?

Thank you for your incisive criticisms of my work. I appreciate any constructive criticism, especially from someone with such a strong vocabulary.

I appreciate all your comments, but this one especially. It really gives the reader a sense of what you’re all about – a testament to your ability to communicate. I’m sorry that you feel that there should be no restrictions on calling people liars. Eliminating name calling must leave you scrambling for material.

Clearly you feel that terms like “psychopathic stalkers” should also be permitted, which I’m sure puts you in strong company with other intellectuals.
The only point I take offense at is when you call me a transparent joke. I’m not really transparent, am I?

Due to moderating delays, I did not see this posting when I composed my response above at September 10, 2011 at 8:29 am. Please give it a read before your next posting so that you will understand how Mr. McKee’s home-court tilts.

Regarding who has the balls to reveal themselves on the internet, we’ll leave that to former Congressmen.

The relevance of real world identities to salient discussion can be a straw man. Straw burns, and rather fast. This is why we shouldn’t be playing with matches, particularly around the loose straw of who we all are and where we make our nests to rest our weary heads.

In my opinion, the only time aliases are dishonest is when multiples are employed in the same thread by the same individual without equating the aliases in a dubious ploy to stilt the perception on the numbers of supporters to some hypothesis.

Having been through the alias-ASS-ociating game before, I have learned that it is okay to point out one time that two aliases might be the same individual. Taking their admission or denial to the alias-ASS-ociating accusation at face value is always the best course of action. After all, we want our own word on a matter that we alone are the most knowledgeable — who we are and are not — to be taken and trusted as such. Continuing the accusations despite (or without) a denial is a distraction, and could backfire if the accusation is in fact an error.

We leave lots of internet finger prints, some of which can be picked up by those who have home-court advantage. Those with a badge and a need to know have them all. Thus, ultimately truth will be revealed.

Very well put. It’s not so much that people use “screen names” for whatever personal reason. It’s what those screen names are associated with in promoting. If I remain anonymous, I’m going to at least make sure that any claims made under “onesliceshort” is backed up and more importantly, retracted when proven wrong.

If you’ve ever had the displeasure of debating at government loyalist sites, you’ll know that they operate the same way. Thing is, they are defending the indefensible and can be easily exposed.
The likes of Brian Good uses multiple screen names.
“Punxetawny(?) Barney” on Youtube and other forums to attack Willie Rodriguez and CIT.
“truebeleaguer” at Truthaction (where he attacks CD/WTC7).
“Watson” at 911Oz to promote “NOC impact” nonsense.
He used his own name at 911Oz when promoting the OCT at the Pentagon (“SOC path”)

Now I’m sure your as pissed off as hearing about these personalities as I am writing about them, but seeing them all post at 911Oz in the same threads is a bizarre experience.

On the one hand, there was Chris Sarns posting intermittedly about “NOC impact”. Then we had Brian Good promoting the “SOC path”/OCT, warts and all. Then we had Jeff Hill and his mob promoting fatally flawed “flightpaths” (over the Navy Annex and lining up with the directional damage) and “perspective issue” crap. Then we had Ronald Weick, OCT defender extraordinaire. And Snowcrash..well you’ve seen his “style”.

What summed it up perfectly for me was a thread at 911Blogger where Chris Sarns and Frank Legge were involved in a “tiff” over “NOC vs SOC plus impact”. John Bursill interjected and said “we are all on the same page”.

What “page” is that? Anything goes as long as the conclusion is that the plane hit the building?
Any “standards” set on the truth about the Pentagon attack is completely lacking. Completely transparent. AND THEY DON’T CARE!

Could you imagine the same “standards” were used regarding Manhattan?

It’s much more than a “squabble” between forums as some have suggested. Some of the same people are physically in and around what should have been a landmark anniversary meeting of minds where we could have pushed on from has been reduced to a PR/censorship stunt just like the deluge of “9/11 specials” on MSM. You would think that some of these people would prefer the “truth movement” to exist for another ten years.

Mr. Brian Good’s many different online aliases bothers me as much as Bruce Wayne’s frequent outings as Batman, or the actor who portrays Peter Parker who is the Spiderman alias. In a historical Ben Franklin sort of a way, a pen-name is deployed to become the lightning rod and troll magnet that benefits from a fresh start, a new alias, in a new publication. Ben Franklin took eventual credit for all of his “on paper” alter-egos and aliases, because he stood behind his words.

Thanks very much for that support. Your perspective is very interesting.

I was wondering about why she backed out, and where pressure might have come from. Technically, I didn’t have to retract anything because I only said people should be angry IF she was replaced so that a CIT opponent like Jim Hoffman could be added to the schedule. But I stepped back from that one point in my article because I don’t have any proof that the organizers dumped her or that others threatened her to withdraw. And my fears that they would replace her with Hoffman turned out to be unfounded. I’m very interested in hearing about anything you learn, however.

I do have serious criticisms of the Toronto hearings witness list regardless of that point. The four-day conference spent about 75 minutes on the Pentagon and 45 minutes on Flight 93. Meanwhile, they spent all of Saturday and part of Friday on the evidence for a controlled demolition at the World Trade Center (I’ll be talking about this in a post very soon).

They snubbed Barrie Zwicker because of his support of CIT. Zwicker could and should have been invited to speak about the role of the media in maintaining the official story OR the history of false flag operations. He’s an expert in both. They also didn’t get a pilot on their list (yes, they invited at least three, but I’m sure if they’d made the request directly to Pilots for 9/11 Truth, a representative of the group could have been found).

My greatest concern about the hearings is that almost nothing was said about the overwhelming evidence that no plan hit the Pentagon. The impossibility of that was the first thing that convinced me of the Pentagon deception. I can’t believe we’re throwing all that evidence away to reach a “consensus.”

She’s been labelled a “moneygrabber”, “liar” and an “operative” by some of the same people.
She must be a cold hard bitch if this is true as her baby son was left partially brain damaged by the Pentagon blast.

So, I see it like this. Does ayone believe that Ms Gallup doesn’t occasionally google her name? That she isn’t aware of how some of the people organizing this event actually viewed her?

I have a thread over at pilotsfor911truth which show all available chronological images and videos of the Pentagon lawn area and there were TWO visible (unidentified) scraps of aluminium way to the north of the “impact zone”. NONE to the south or in front of it.

There are many more witnesses who were on the scene within minutes and described the same thing. Some of whom are now members of Patriots for 9/11 Truth. Some were police officers, firefighters and independent journalists and MSM.

News reporters, military, rescue workers and survivors were second guessing for over an HOUR just what had happened because there was no obvious signs that an aircraft had crashed there. No, the 100 ton airliner was sucked entirely into that hole.

Survivors immediately spread the word that they KNEW it was a bomb (Viet Nam vet officer included), some describing the smell of cordite.

She should have had a standing ovation in Toronto for knocking on the door of the Justice Department with the majority of the very same LIHOP claims pushed primarily by these people coupled with REAL evidence of a black op at the Pentagon (FDR/RADES manipulation ad aircraft limitations and witness testimony that no witness has countered in all of these years). What a disgrace.

You can now find us at truthandshadows.com!

To reach this site, you can now simply go to truthandshadows.com (no need to type in "wordpress") and you be redirected here. This will save people all over the world tens of seconds over their lifetimes!

Email Subscription

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Plato on shadows

Those who are able to see beyond the shadows and lies of their culture will never be understood let alone believed by the masses. – Plato

Choosing dictatorship

A society whose citizens refuse to see and investigate the facts, who refuse to believe that their government and their media will routinely lie to them and fabricate a reality that is contrary to verifiable facts, is a society that chooses and deserves the police state dictatorship it is going to get. – Ian Williams Goddard

The stages of truth

All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident.
– Arthur Schoepenhauer

Origin of the term ‘False Flag’

The term originated in the days of naval warfare. Ships would hoist the flag of their enemy, enabling them to approach closer to enemy ships than otherwise they could. They then could open fire with the advantage of surprise. The combination of secrecy and deception is a hallmark of all false flag operations.
The definitional issues of false flag go well beyond the two components mentioned above and will be tackled in Part 3. The false flag phenomenon encompasses false flag events, pseudo events, front organizations and players (agents). In the events category the not-always-reliable Wikipedia provides a good definition:
False flag operations are covert operations (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Covert_operation) conducted by governments, corporations, or other organizations […] designed to deceive the public in such a way that the operations appear as if they are being carried out by other entities. […] False flag operations are not limited to war and counter-insurgency operations, and have been used in peace-time; for example, during Italy's strategy of tension (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategy_of_ tension).
Outcomes are one criterion for classifying false flag events, pseudo events, fronts and agents. The strategy of tension, mentioned in the Wikipedia definition, includes all four forms. Ironically a pretty good explanation of the outcomes criterion can be found on an anti-Truther site, Skeptoid:*
If one were to work solely from [“conspiracy hotbeds”] it would be easy to get the impression that our recent history is jammed with prefabricated incidents designed to enable our government to grab more power, take away the rights of the common people and/or line their already fattened pockets.
You got it right there, Skeptoid.
• http://skeptoid.com/blog/2013/01/21/false-flag-attacks-myth-and-reality/
.– Barrie Zwicker

Exposing the lies

The World-Wide 9/11 Truth movement is currently the largest investigative journalism project on the planet. – Barrie Zwicker

On conspiracy theories

Every time someone makes fun of the idea of “conspiracy theories” they are exhibiting a conditioned response – like salivating when they hear a bell or believing a TV news program. – Craig McKee

Reach Craig by email

It took long enough, but Truth and Shadows now has its own email for those of you wanting to send messages to me that aren't intended for the comments section. To reach me, email truthandshadows@yahoo.com.
Some of you already have been using my personal email to reach me with blog related messages or questions, and you can certainly continue to do that if you wish. - Craig McKee